Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/8/2013 4:19:30 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2583
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
It needs, at the very least, an 'off' button - so they stop trying to make the bleedin' runs, so you can plan your tactics around that. Columns do get through at night, for example. The problem is no commander would keep sending those jeeps into the killzones by day, repeatedly. We need to be able to stop that, and ticking 'min' supply does not do that. Then, once all the jeeps are gone, it's absurd that other bases have plenty of jeeps (especially true once XXX Corps get through) and they can't be used by the depleted bases. So you actually have to order the destruction of your now useless base units in order to get the supply chain to switch.

It's tempting to always blame the commander (especially if you have a life-time of real life experience doing this, Jim - ) but it's not always down to the user - sometimes the modelling might benefit from a little tweaking, and this is a case of that, I think.

No one else will presently be able to play this scenario, Daz, as only you and I have it. But you get the same issues playing the original - From the Meuse to the Rhine.

The best I can do as a workaround, Daz, is (i)to designate all the airborne SEPs as ground/highway/wheeled and keep the bases as close as possible to the flot. That way if interdiction happens between the SEP and the base then no jeeps are lost (ground SEPs use their own virtual jeeps to supply the bases, I believe). (ii) up the supply figures and the 'summary/% of estab' figures for all the airborne bases - I put in 200% for all these. That more or less triples the amount of jeeps each base starts off with.

Then you just have to develop tactics to deal with the supply not getting through. The attrit still happens, because most of it just comes - as Jim says (and as all my experiments showed) - from the mass of enemy confronting the flot. But at least the extra jeeps mitigates it a bit.

I have made these small changes to the original FTMTTR scenario and I'm playing that through now, to see how it goes.

It needs a fix though, I think, and the 'no supply' button would be my absolute choice for that, if one had to be chosen.

< Message edited by phoenix -- 9/8/2013 6:28:56 PM >

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 61
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/8/2013 4:35:24 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2583
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
I think the fast expenditure of ammo was fixed some patches back, Wodin. Haven't noticed that problem myself, though it's true my spotlight hasn't been on it.

I'm not sure they do last 'days' without ammo and 'cut-off' Daz. It seemed to be about 6 hours last time I remarked on it. Those Axis units I surrounded nth of the Nijmegan bridge lasted only about 6 hours before the surrenders started coming thick and fast, provided you kept them more or less constantly engaged.

A slower rate of fire wouldn't address the issues we're raising though, just delay them.

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 62
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/8/2013 4:40:03 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
The rate of fire problem was sorted a while back when Dave noticed he had put in a temporary bit of code that he forgot to take out. All is fine with that now. This is a different issue that affects long scenarios especially, and Paratroops in particular because of their small quantity of supply vehicles.

Jim
I Have not shown yet some of the situations where the supply trucks defiantly should not have. been destroyed.
My intension was to list them all as they happened, however, I really got into the challenge of the game and wanted to finnish the game before I went on holiday to France and,it was slowing my progress.
Unfortunately I failed, as I am typing this on my mobile from the Airport hotel. We fly out tomorrow.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 63
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/8/2013 4:42:18 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2583
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Have a great break, Daz. Where in France?

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 64
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/8/2013 7:16:33 PM   
jimcarravall

 

Posts: 642
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

The rate of fire problem was sorted a while back when Dave noticed he had put in a temporary bit of code that he forgot to take out. All is fine with that now. This is a different issue that affects long scenarios especially, and Paratroops in particular because of their small quantity of supply vehicles.

Jim
I Have not shown yet some of the situations where the supply trucks defiantly should not have. been destroyed.
My intension was to list them all as they happened, however, I really got into the challenge of the game and wanted to finnish the game before I went on holiday to France and,it was slowing my progress.
Unfortunately I failed, as I am typing this on my mobile from the Airport hotel. We fly out tomorrow.


Have a good trip.

The rate of fire is only one component of the overall calculation for losing a vehicle.

My example is that the fire, even if mediated by Dave's fix to reduce individual unit fire, is more at the target the more enemy units capable of providing fire involved.

Basically the probability of losing vehicles increases with the frequency the vehicles are used, and the longer the duration they're in use at that frequency, whether it's from "real life" mechanical wear (which can be modeled by the reliability calculation in the Estab if evaluated by the engine), or for facing a probability of kill by fire for each round fired at the target.

It's a basic logistics calculation to determine the optimum number of vehicles which should be assigned to a unit for its missions. It gets constrained by how the units reach the site of the mission (air deployable units having fewer vehicle assets that can be transported by air because of size, and weight limitations for the transporting vehicles [aircraft and gliders], and the number of transporting vehicles assigned to the mission for deployment of troops, support equipment, and supplies.

_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 65
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/8/2013 8:16:06 PM   
wodin


Posts: 10206
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: online
OK thanks for the info..it shows I haven't played for ages. Waiting for the EF game.

_____________________________


(in reply to jimcarravall)
Post #: 66
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/8/2013 8:49:33 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Have a great break, Daz. Where in France?


Near Narbonne on the Med coast.
Sun & sea for a week. :)

Some interesting points Jim but there are still issues that I will go into more when I get back. One of the biggest being to lack of supply transport resupply once a linkup has been made with XXX Corps for both 82nd Airborne and 1st Airborne Div.

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 67
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/8/2013 9:09:57 PM   
jimcarravall

 

Posts: 642
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

OK thanks for the info..it shows I haven't played for ages. Waiting for the EF game.


Jason,

I spent 27 years working US Army logistics better than 2/3-rds of the time for integrating new ground vehicle systems or significant modifications to existing systems into existing units.

Those units fought to various combat doctrines ranging from late World War II to "future combat" where new technologies were used to reduce World War II logistics constraints.

The game mimics many of the aspects of simulations that were used to plan logistics integration of those new systems into existing units. Those simulations were validated when "new" systems were eventually sent to test events or later deployed to actual battle (feedback from which was used to improve the simulation and test evaluations).

I choose to argue against changing the game mechanics when the requested changes ignore the logistics implications that were only analogies in the simulation parameters or violate feedback from battle diaries used to develop those simulations.

The "Bridge Too Far" story is the extreme of the Airland Battle doctrine favored in the late 20th century.

It borrowed against experiences in Vietnam (which preceded my service to the US Army) based on helicopter transport being available (essentially the same glider-delivered combat support during World War II without a constrain on the number of gliders used).

Command Ops is an excellent workbench to learn the mechanics of managing battle space and the adverse effects of encountering enemy resistance in that battle space.

_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 68
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/13/2013 11:25:56 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2583
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
So it doesn't seem to make any difference siting the base close to the flot.




They are all out of ammo and I've had many 100% interdict messages. The jeep attrition isn't an issue because I have given them about three times the normal number of jeeps. But the front line units can't get bullets. I say again that I think this is wrong, that these units, on the edge of a built-up urban area, ought to be able to get a minimum supply through from the rear, even if it takes some heroics to achieve that!!!. If they were all sitting out in an exposed field I might accept it quicker.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by phoenix -- 9/13/2013 11:30:32 PM >

(in reply to jimcarravall)
Post #: 69
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/14/2013 3:30:30 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
I agree with you mate.

Not because of this screen shot though, as I can see the depot is under fire, from the orange light in the corner.

From many of my own experiences playing this scenario though, something definitely needs to be done about preserving the supply transports.

If the units go out of supply, on the front line they can always be pulled back, but once the transports are destroyed, the situation becomes un-recoverable, and extremely un realistic.

In my game I have whole regiments of American and British Airborne, with XXX Corps all around them, yet I cant even move them, because they have ran out of basics. Due to no supply vehicles left their fatigue never drops low enough to allow it.

All this is taking place within 500m of the depot full of supplies.

Now tell me that's realistic?

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 70
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/14/2013 3:51:04 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2583
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
I hadn't noticed the orange light, of course....But I'm thinking Stalingrad city fighting. It went on for months. And whilst the base is 'under fire' I definitely didn't see any 'indirect fire' flashes, so I assume it's being sniped from across the bridge. But how? It's in a city environment.




That's the environment. It's silly to suggest some supply couldn't sneak through. Maybe it's the cover and concealment properties of city map terrain that need changing?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by phoenix -- 9/14/2013 3:52:11 PM >

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 71
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/14/2013 3:51:08 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Just been taking another look at your screen shot Phoenix. This is a very bad example of it not working you know?

Look at the size of the footprint of your depot. The supply base encompasses about 5 of the Coy's around it, and is actually overlapping the SS units advancing from the North.
Not a very good situation to be dishing out supplies in!
I guess you could say that the surrounding Coy's should be able to pick up crates of the stuff that has been thrown, or blown about in all the fighting though lol

On the ground they would actually be taking cover behind piles of stacked supplies, as they are fighting within the bounds of the depot itself.

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 72
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/14/2013 3:54:47 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2583
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Or from where that SS unit is -




It should all be close fighting in a city environment. The abstraction required to factor in a few views up straight streets etc to determine LOS leeds I think to a really unrealistic LOS in city environments.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by phoenix -- 9/14/2013 3:55:58 PM >

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 73
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/14/2013 4:02:35 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2583
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
And whilst I'm on, the size of the depot footprints is bizarre. Sometimes - for the Corps bases, for example, I get a square that covers ALL of Nijmegan!! The footprint for this unit with it's 36 jeeps is silly, I think, if that's what we're using to determine anything.

I just don't see how supply wouldn't get through. It's a dense city environment, the base is close. they wouldn't be running the supplies in jeeps - they'd be sneaking through houses carrying the stuff, in order to keep going. It needs changing, and I don't think there's much fun in playing these airborne scenarios until it is.

But if the footprint really is to overlap the units that need supply then it's even more bizarre that they can't get that supply - presumably the supply is just sitting there, right beside them....

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 74
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/14/2013 4:03:57 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
I think it would work better if you place it in the area of the roundabout.

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 75
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/14/2013 4:13:01 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
I'm guessing that when you increased the quantity of vehicles in the depot, you also increased the amount of manpower to load the supplies, to fix the additional vehicles, to feed them, to man them, and rotate the drivers.

I think the depot footprint is always a bit larger not only because of the large number of personnel, and supplies, but also to simulate the distribution of the supplies, and vehicles waiting for delivery, so as to be a bit dispersed. To make it not quite so vulnerable to air, and artillery bombardment, as I'm sure it would be for real.

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 76
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/14/2013 5:24:18 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Thought I would post this as a bit of light relief.
This is a pic of a driver that knew when to turn back
Note the bullet holes in the front wing!

http://www.pegasusarchive.org/arnhem/Photos2/Pic_Jeep2.htm




Attachment (1)

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 77
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/14/2013 5:52:55 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2583
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Nice cuppa..ahh....

Lol. I could be wrong, of course - I've never been a soldier. Maybe it's realistic that those Nijmegan paras in my pic would get no supply under those circs. Who knows...

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 78
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/14/2013 6:38:28 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
I think unless they where pinned down, there would be plenty of ammo lying around, for them to pick up, fighting inside the depots boundaries.

It's not a very good situation to be in mind, with the enemy inside your supply dump!
Although the guys fighting to defend it will have ammo lying around, the rest of the Regiment will have to go without.
Also if your depot is forced to retreat, you will lose a lot of the stored supply, not to mention the equipment and men that are lost in the fight.

The game can't account for every real life scenario, as I'm sure you are aware, especially for a five year old engine.
But like you I think something needs to be done about the supply situation, and I still think the best (easiest) way to go about it is to give the drivers some better situational awareness by reducing the losses to the vehicles, and just accepting that the supply couldn't get though as the route was too dangerous to attempt.

I don't know how you could handle, giving out supply by hand to nearby troops, with the current engine, or being able to stop supply runs until X hour, or change the route?
I think that kind of stuff will have to wait for Command Ops 2, but that's just a guess, and I know very little about the engine, and don't want to put words into Dave's mouth.
Its his baby.




(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 79
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/15/2013 1:06:26 AM   
Deathtreader


Posts: 1001
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline
Hi all,

Regarding depot footprint......... try drastically reducing the size of the footprint by manually assigning a defend order to the base......... i think you'll find the results vary considerably from what you are seeing now.


Rob.

_____________________________

So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 80
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/16/2013 10:42:59 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
The forum seems to have been rolled back, and a load of the posts have been lost, so I'm going to re-post this:

This is from a save, to show what I did in my game, that I am getting close to finishing, to get XXX Corps over the Waal as quickly as possible.

It was a classic Command Ops moment of, do I, or don't I taken at Corps Commanders level by me.

I had a Coy already over the bridge tentatively holding on to a small bridgehead, where I could see, before it got dark, a large enemy force including armour massing to the North, East, and West.
I had to decide on the spot (well to be honest I slept on it over night lol) whether to pull back the Bn or to reinforce it.

If I pulled it back, I might not get to Arnhem in time to save the Brit Paras, by the time XXX Corps have managed to get over the bridge.
If I reinforced it, I knew that I would be sending the reinforcements into a whole world of pain, and death.
Also it would leave the South flank of the City short of a whole Regiment for its defence.

With a pained look I turned to my signaller and said, " Contact Colonel Ekman of the 505, tell him to proceed as planned, and.....good luck over there"

This is Command Ops at its best!
Well apart from the supply issue that is





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 9/16/2013 11:05:19 AM >

(in reply to Deathtreader)
Post #: 81
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/16/2013 10:52:47 AM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2583
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Very brave! It's looking good though. Only day 2, so plenty of time (except for those jeeps.....) Is this still the 'testbed' scenario I sent you? If so, how are they doing up in Arnhem? Supply gone yet?

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 82
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/16/2013 11:07:12 AM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2583
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
I'm playing another variation now, with interesting results. I should call it - 'XXX Corps are persuaded to get up at dawn....' It's the original historical From the Meuse to the Rhine scenario, with all the original drops (spread over 3 days etc), original drop locations miles away from the objectives, original re-supply DZs miles away (original SEP locations), nothing changed there. All I've changed to force arrival times is the XXX Corps ETA. Some elements now get to the map 12 hours earlier. To mitigate the supply problems I've changed all air SEPs to ground SEPs and given them the max supply of jeeps (about three times the number in the stock scenario). Plus I've greatly increased overall supply. And added a few more air strikes. And beefed up the stats for 1 and 2 para. These, I think, do not represent very dramatic changes compared to things like landing everyone on day 1, setting up CDM drops, moving re-supply SEPs etc. So this one, I think, is relatively realistic. It assumes that XXX Corps were infused with a sense of urgency they appear to have lacked historically, and fought through the preceding night, instead of bedding down.

I'm surprised to be doing ok at it. One interesting (and obvious, though overlooked by me) point is that if you leave in all the various little objectives that were in the original FTMTTR, then the Axis effort against the bridgeheads is, of course, greatly diluted. So having the DZs far away and many smaller strung out battles to try to keep them and keep the supply chain, also stretches the Axis. In my converted scenarios - where I got rid of all the less important objectives and gave both sides VLs concentrating just on the main bridges, the weight of the Axis attack on the bridges was much worse.

This (below) is where I'm at in Nijmegan:




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by phoenix -- 9/16/2013 11:08:42 AM >

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 83
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/16/2013 11:09:48 AM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2583
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
And Arnhem;






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by phoenix -- 9/16/2013 11:11:33 AM >

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 84
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/16/2013 11:12:33 AM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2583
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Without the extra jeeps in the bases, by the way, one of the Brit bases would already have been out of jeeps...

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 85
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/16/2013 4:30:08 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Very brave! It's looking good though. Only day 2, so plenty of time (except for those jeeps.....) Is this still the 'testbed' scenario I sent you? If so, how are they doing up in Arnhem? Supply gone yet?



Yes it is your Original version that you sent me. I'm still playing the same game. These are from saves, I am currently on day 7. The Jeeps have been a huge problem but by moving quick between the bridges I think I may have pulled of a victory.

As you can see I have only just moved into the bridgehead on my old save, so no supply issues yet. There will be very soon though.

I would like to know how close the supply vehicles have to get to the units, before man handling takes over, like Dave has mentioned before it does?

If I had more control over the supply, like any good commander should, I would specify that the trucks only venture across the bridge at night to bring supplies from the SEP to the Bases.
They would go out on mass accompanied by an artillery barrage along the banks of the river if held by the enemy, to mask any noise, and to suppress any that dare take a shot, if they were to use Illume rounds to light the bridge.
It would also be accompanied by suppressing fire from the units on the South bank dug into the factory there.
I also keep an Armoured Bn on that bend for just this reason once the Guards arrive.
I would even co-ordinate it with a counter attack along the North bank, such is the importance of maintaining the supplies.

Oh well.....one day, maybe




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 9/16/2013 4:46:03 PM >

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 86
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/16/2013 10:38:03 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
This is going to be the last post I make on the supply Jeep issue.
Dave has already said he is going to look into the problem in one of his posts, and has even mentioned the adjustment's he might make, so I'm going to get on with enjoying the challenge of beating the scenario, even with the supply problem




Attachment (1)

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 87
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/17/2013 8:13:38 AM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2583
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Good post, Daz, if that's your last one on the jeeps. Highlights a separate issue in the problem, I think - the naff avoidance route.

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 88
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/17/2013 8:53:20 AM   
wodin


Posts: 10206
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: online
Have you checked that when it says 12 in the ES it doesn't mean 12 including those out on deliveries? 4 jeeps lost in 43 mins on four deliveries seems low..1 jeep to each coy...as it seems 5 have been sent out on two deliveries at the moment. If it was only 12 left that would mean 9 jeeps destroyed on 4 deliveries which seems right if lost 100%.

< Message edited by wodin -- 9/17/2013 8:55:10 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 89
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/17/2013 2:15:37 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
I think the deliveries to Mortar platoons requires more Jeeps because of the heavier ammo.
Also runs to the SEP require more Jeeps.
1 Jeep per PIR Coy has been about the average.

The Jeeps where actually destroyed within 12 min of each other, it was 43 min since they where sent out when the base deployed after its move.
By morning all the Jeeps had been destroyed for this depot.
It was a good move sending the base over the river though, because the ammo it fires never runs out, so it was the strongest unit in the bridgehead for the following day.

< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 9/17/2013 2:21:52 PM >

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.201